Perceptions of research training in a hematology/oncology fellowship program.

Abstract

11030 Background: Current research training in Hematology/Oncology (Heme/Onc) fellowship is typically limited to mentoring relationships, which are highly variable due to the absence of standardized training for mentors and different perceptions of successful mentor-mentee relationships. Formal research productivity assessment is challenging and lacking in our current educational framework. Methods: Electronic surveys were developed to assess research training during fellowship at the University of Wisconsin (UW). Surveys were sent to current Heme/Onc fellows (n = 9), members of fellowship leadership (n = 4), and core research faculty (n = 5) with prior successful mentorship to trainees. Results: Surveys were completed by 6 fellows, 3 fellowship leadership, and 5 core research faculty. Both faculty and trainees recognized the research mentor-mentee relationship to be critical, with 5/6 (83%) fellows and 3/5 (60%) core research faculty identifying research mentors as the most meaningful training source. However, despite 5/6 (83%) fellows having a research mentor identified, there were large variations in the perceived level of proficiency in core research topics. While 3 fellows felt only slightly prepared in basics of clinical trial design, 1 fellow felt very prepared and 2 felt somewhat prepared. Furthermore, 2 fellows each felt very prepared, somewhat prepared, or not at all prepared in assembling grant components. There was also variable confidence reported by core research faculty in the ability of trainees to obtain funding and conduct independent research after fellowship, with 1 extremely confident, 2 somewhat confident, and 2 only a little confident. All individuals surveyed recognized manuscript publication, abstract presentation, and grant acquisition as important measures of research productivity. Beyond that, however, only 1/5 (20%) core research faculty and 0/3 (0%) fellowship leadership noted using rubrics for critical review of trainee academic progress despite 3/6 (50%) fellows believing that such rubrics were being used for their evaluation. Conclusions: The divergent experiences identified among research mentors and mentees and the lack of clearly defined metrics of research productivity highlights the need for a more standardized educational framework and formative evaluation tools. These identified needs have led to a pilot program at UW that intends to create a professional learning community for research mentors, define competencies for research training, and design a research training portfolio and accompanying assessment rubric.